TfL to take over most, if not all London suburban services

[physics34]

I think I read somewhere about simplification for the 2018 timetable onwards with regards to some Metro services - e.g. stoppers between Norwood and New Cross Gate being left to TFL. Does that ring true?

Still a stopper but just London Bridge to West Croydon via Forest Hill. (and of course the current 2Fs.

But there will be no direct service for passengers from New Cross Gate to Anerley inclusive for East Croydon. The Caterhams will be fast...with a portion to Tattenham. The main aim of this is to have less conflicts on Cottage Bridge and WIndmill Bridge junctions.

New Cross Gate will lose all fast trains, which actually seem to be quite well used, so that the Thameslinks dont get slowed down. In theory though you could have some southern fast services (Down Only) stopping at New Cross Gate on the Down SLow, which can then crossover to the DOwn fast south of NXG. Not sure it would be worth just stopping the fast services on the Down ONLY.

 

[Chrisgr31]

New Cross Gate will lose all fast trains, which actually seem to be quite well used, so that the Thameslinks dont get slowed down. In theory though you could have some southern fast services (Down Only) stopping at New Cross Gate on the Down SLow, which can then crossover to the DOwn fast south of NXG. Not sure it would be worth just stopped the fast services on the DOwn ONLY.

I am surprised that more fast East Croydon to/from London Bridge trains dont stop at New Cross Gate as would seem like an obvious changing point for those wanting to go to Canary Wharf etc. Guess the problem is loss of Zone 1 ticket income.

 

[Chris125]

From what I can tell, the inner GA lines from Liverpool St hasn't gotten any better, and the performance on the ELL is questionable at best.

A recent TfL board paper says quite the opposite about LO's West Anglia services.

Comparing the last four reporting periods under the previous operator with the same periods one year later, it states a 15% reduction in delayed trains, 86% reduction in fare evasion and a 27% increase in passenger journeys.

Satisfaction with station staff availability is up 43 points, cleanliness up 32 points and information about train times up 15 points, improving overall satisfaction from 74% to 77%.

"The improvements on West Anglia have been delivered using the same infrastructure and trains inherited from the previous operator. Improvements for customers have been down to our incentive model for the train operator – which is based on on time trains and customer satisfaction, rather than financial performance. The operator is required to work in close partnership with rolling stock maintainers, Network Rail and us, to ensure a collective focus on customer service. Under this regime there have been: additional staff and training; refurbishment of stations and trains; improved regular station and train cleaning and maintenance; enhanced, integrated real-time information; additional ticket gates; measures to eliminate the causes of delays; and faster response to infrastructure failures to minimise their impact. New rolling stock is under construction and will start to be introduced in 2018"

 

[HH]

Indeed, as I've said before the focus of the DfT has been to get the biggest premium, while TfL has been happy to spend money to make the service better. Indeed the whole focus of the two organisations when letting the franchise/concession is different, with TfL seeking to make sure that the Operator will be incentivised to deliver improvements to the passenger, while DfT worries about financial risks.

 

[telstarbox]

I am surprised that more fast East Croydon to/from London Bridge trains dont stop at New Cross Gate as would seem like an obvious changing point for those wanting to go to Canary Wharf etc. Guess the problem is loss of Zone 1 ticket income.

London Bridge is the obvious changing point for Canary Wharf using the Jubilee line. From New Cross Gate you would have to change again at Canada Water.

There are also Overground services from West Croydon to New Cross Gate (and then north to Dalston / Highbury).

 

[jon0844]

TfL has certainly stated huge reductions in fare evasion. I wonder if the result is that more people are paying OR that more people who previously travelled free are staying away, which has actually helped a little in reducing crowding and associated delays?

 

[glbotu]

So, classic economics doesn't quite make sense in a transport environment anyway. We can't be mumbling ridiculous things about monopolies in transport, when almost all transport routes run monopolies. In fact, the only transport routes which don't, tend to be deregulated buses and as I think everyone can agree, the deregulated bus network is a colossal mess.

The reason LO devolution has thus far worked, is that TfL entirely runs its operation as a means of moving passengers around London. Even Conservative mayor Boris Johnson was quite happy to lose money funding the Overground, because it kept London moving.

The reason they're popular is because TfL, in an attempt to get London moving, wants to tempt people off of other modes of transport, and onto the ones its just inherited. They grab ALL the low-hanging fruit as quickly as possible, in notable contrast to the DfT's approach, which is slow and measured (in part because they need to fund big projects on a frequent basis - with a totally different investment model). You'll notice how TfL re-furbished all the 315s and 317s in a matter of months (I think it was months), when Northern's spend the best part of a year and only just refurbished a single 158 (yes, I know they don't want to be associated with "old stock"). Again, quick wins, but done straight off the bat. Staffing stations, giving them a quick lick of paint, quick wins, but popular. No, they don't have a magic wand, and yes, sorting out the South Eastern and Southern metros will be difficult, but again, the first thing you'd see on takeover would be the quick wins, re-furbished trains (which the general public will still see as "new"), lick of paint on newly staffed stations, running a couple of extra trains in spare off-peak paths. Ta-da!!!

It's almost exactly what Virgin do when they take over a franchise - look how quickly the HSTs and 91s got re-painted and there's not that long until all of them will have the new interior. I certainly noticed Durham railway station's ticket office hours being about 2-3 hours later since they took over and everything's just a little cleaner. Small things, but it changes the public perception, which in a city like London, which needs to squeeze every bit of capacity it has out, will do a damned sight better than whatever GTR's doing with their Southern concession, by pushing those extra passengers onto those trains regardless of how well they actually run.

 

[bicbasher]

Duringh the peaks, there is very little capacity between New Cross Gate and Canada Water on the Overground services as they're full of local passengers. Adding services from Surrey and Sussex to New Cross Gate during those times will make it even worse.

 

[jon0844]

TfL does indeed want to control everything. I remember when we discussed home working and it was quite clear TfL wasn't really keen in promoting things that would reduce usage.

It seems that it relishes the thought of transportation getting to capacity, and exceeding it, and then working to add more capacity and so on.

It may be far from perfect, but at least in London there's a sense that most things are working together for the 'greater good'. There are usually lots of options available to people, from tubes to buses, to the river boats and even walking with excellent signage to help you get about.

 

[ScotGG]

TfL has certainly stated huge reductions in fare evasion. I wonder if the result is that more people are paying OR that more people who previously travelled free are staying away, which has actually helped a little in reducing crowding and associated delays?

I would bet on more people paying as buses are now so slow in much of London the small premium (or none at all in many cases) means the train is usually always the better option.

But whatever it is, it's a vast increase in just a year highlighting how many weren't paying and the difference TfL make over the DfT.

Does anyone think if the DfT let the franchise these numbers would be achieved? In theory the DfT could have specified staffing from first to last to help here but in reality almost certainly wouldn't have.

 

[Envy123]

Reading here about the Piccadilly Line issues and then today it was a total nightmare. From when we got into King's Cross to when we passed through going back they were filtering people through just 2 gates to regulate passengers due to problems.

Not sure what the problems were, but it must have been quite chaotic all day.

Yeah, my mother is going through New Southgate as opposed to her usual route through Arnos Grove, to work. I went to Moorgate today to pick up some thing from a friend of mine.

I was baffled that despite the problems with the Piccadilly Line, the GN train was relatively empty with very few people actually getting on and off for stations close to Piccadilly Line stations (Alexandra Palace...etc).

Probably it's to do with a lack of knowledge that these stations exist and/or a lot of people would rather chance it on the Piccadilly than wait for a more infrequent service.

When the GN locals will go to TfL, I can see more people using the stations so I hope the increase in capacity will be able to cope with the sudden increased demand.

But until then, it's my safe haven line.

 

[HH]

TfL has certainly stated huge reductions in fare evasion.

I always take such claims with a pinch of salt, because it depends so much on where and when you measure. I know there were certain hotspots under GA - essentially for short journeys in the late evening. You can catch a lot of people fare evading, but the average fare is very low, so they may not be making any money by the time they paid 12 staff to block all the exits.

 

[SF-02]

With Southeastern its far from only in the late evenings given no on board staff and many open stations. Staff working on Metro know it all too well, as do passengers who've seen a (rare) inspection and the amount of people who rapidly move away.

Will the DfT fix that? Unlikely. Will TfL? Much more so. And hopefully stop many of the problematic people at the same time, or at least make them have some repercussions. Anti spcial behavior is too prevalent and puts off other travellers.

 

[hwl]

I always take such claims with a pinch of salt, because it depends so much on where and when you measure. I know there were certain hotspots under GA - essentially for short journeys in the late evening. You can catch a lot of people fare evading, but the average fare is very low, so they may not be making any money by the time they paid 12 staff to block all the exits.

Part of the current issue on SE is that if they spent more on staff SE would be paying but most of the revenue benefit will go to DfT, so there is no incentive for SE. What changed with the LO take over (of GA) was alignment of cost and revenue from enforcement with LO etc seeing the long term benefits after the initial blitz.
Completely agree that SE metro sees a lot of the same evasion as the ex-GA stations and if anyone wants to do something about it it would need at least 6-12month massive staffing at SE stations for enforcement especially off -peak to achieve lasting behavioural change.

DfT have probably realised that TfL finances couldn't cope with taking over any of the 3 south of the river metro franchises with the fare freeze and that any of them is a much bigger than the previous LO /TfL rail takeovers in terms of size and complexity, with TfL claiming all would magically change if they took over which most people south of the Thames know will actually need mega-bucks not just TfL management, which is the good reason no changes are happening at the moment as the money isn't there.

 

[ScotGG]

It's so often stated about a Southeastern takeover that it's a major job etc and mega bucks needed etc. TfL aren't proposing that initially and many passengers do realise that.

What they can do, for a modest cost, is gate stations and secure the extra revenue as they've done with GA. When you have busy stations (1 million users a year plus up to around 4 million) ungated then there's much scope for revenue increase.

If the DfT thought TfL would fail they'd probably be much more likely to give it to them! They don't like being shown up again and again.

Just changing the internal layouts of trains so we can board at places like Lewisham, and securing extra stock down the line would be nice. If regions with 0-1% annual growth can get that then so should SE Metro where 5% annual growth is happening, and that's with mass un-ticketed travel.

Having seen what tfL have done all over London, including on GA, and knowing the SE Metro area well and the potential it has I have no doubt TfL would see a mass increase in recorded passengers and revenues. The roads in many areas of SE London are crap, buses are very slow and TfL can tap into that. God knows the franchises the DfT have let have not taken advantage.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Still a stopper but just London Bridge to West Croydon via Forest Hill. (and of course the current 2Fs.

But there will be no direct service for passengers from New Cross Gate to Anerley inclusive for East Croydon. The Caterhams will be fast...with a portion to Tattenham. The main aim of this is to have less conflicts on Cottage Bridge and WIndmill Bridge junctions.

New Cross Gate will lose all fast trains, which actually seem to be quite well used, so that the Thameslinks dont get slowed down. In theory though you could have some southern fast services (Down Only) stopping at New Cross Gate on the Down SLow, which can then crossover to the DOwn fast south of NXG. Not sure it would be worth just stopping the fast services on the Down ONLY.

I would imagine that if TfL do get control of those suburban services, and do succeed in their aim of building an interchange with SouthEastern at Brockley, then Brockley would become a more sensible place than New Cross Gate for any fast trains to stop (Assuming of course that there's capacity for them to do so, which sounds somewhat doubtful from your post).

 

[swt_passenger]

I would imagine that if TfL do get control of those suburban services, and do succeed in their aim of building an interchange with SouthEastern at Brockley, then Brockley would become a more sensible place than New Cross Gate for any fast trains to stop (Assuming of course that there's capacity for them to do so, which sounds somewhat doubtful from your post).

No fast line platforms, and no room for them, unlike those that already exist at Norwood Junction and New Cross Gate.

 

[IKB]

Still a stopper but just London Bridge to West Croydon via Forest Hill. (and of course the current 2Fs.

But there will be no direct service for passengers from New Cross Gate to Anerley inclusive for East Croydon. The Caterhams will be fast...with a portion to Tattenham. The main aim of this is to have less conflicts on Cottage Bridge and WIndmill Bridge junctions.

New Cross Gate will lose all fast trains, which actually seem to be quite well used, so that the Thameslinks dont get slowed down. In theory though you could have some southern fast services (Down Only) stopping at New Cross Gate on the Down SLow, which can then crossover to the DOwn fast south of NXG. Not sure it would be worth just stopping the fast services on the Down ONLY.

Thanks, makes sense. The Horshams that stop are indeed popular. I understand why rationing of fast stoppers is required (that ambitious 24 tph through the core means eliminating hold ups). But if I lived/worked at New Cross Gate I would feel a little hard done by...either get a stopper to Norwood or have to retrace steps to/from London Bridge. But alas, you can't please all the people all the time.

 

[HH]

Having seen what tfL have done all over London, including on GA, and knowing the SE Metro area well and the potential it has I have no doubt TfL would see a mass increase in recorded passengers and revenues. The roads in many areas of SE London are crap, buses are very slow and TfL can tap into that. God knows the franchises the DfT have let have not taken advantage.

I'm not convinced that hiring some extra staff, installing gates and giving the stations a lick of paint is going to solve all SE's problems. Let's start with where you stable the trains...

 

[SF-02]

No one says it will.

Once again, who is more likely to get the ball rolling on that? The DfT or TfL in the mid term? I don't think many have any faith in the DfT to get the ball rolling so NR invest.

 

[GodAtum]

New Cross Gate will lose all fast trains, which actually seem to be quite well used, so that the Thameslinks dont get slowed down. In theory though you could have some southern fast services (Down Only) stopping at New Cross Gate on the Down SLow, which can then crossover to the DOwn fast south of NXG. Not sure it would be worth just stopping the fast services on the Down ONLY.

That's moving to New Cross gate off the list!

 

[cle]

The fasts may well return to NXG when the Bakerloo eventually makes it there. Would become quite the hub...and if anything, could be worth stopping all trains there.

Would slow journeys down for many, but could be very useful:
- interchange onto a tube line with capacity (direct to Waterloo and Charing Cross in a comparable time via LB)
- relief of the Jubilee at LB towards the West End -
- NXG is on the main trunk of the ELL and so also offers high frequency trains there (which are planned to increase) - a quicker journey to City (Shoreditch), Canary Wharf and a quicker link perhaps to Crossrail at Whitechapel (especially if headed east) than via Farringdon.

So overall, I could see everything stopping at NXG being quite smart when the Bakerloo hits. London's too big (and growing still) to not have two inner stops on regional services (Old Oak, Finsbury Park, Stratford, CJ etc) and the zone 2 ones are very useful. S-Bahn esque.

 

[Class377/5]

No one says it will.

Once again, who is more likely to get the ball rolling on that? The DfT or TfL in the mid term? I don't think many have any faith in the DfT to get the ball rolling so NR invest.

TfL haven't got the money to do same level of change as they did with the original Overground routes (plus there was a world of difference between them and SE lines). Other than painting stations and agreeing to a overhaul of units (something SE hasn't been allowed to do yet bar the 375 fleet) there's little money to do anything else.

Don't forget that LO services are subsidised heavily to make them more attractive. TfL won't be able to afford any changes bar what's already been agreed. Extra staff etc will cost money and someone has to stump up for it. It could quite literally come down to staff at a station or medical or educational and facilities and which one do you thinks going to win?

As for NR investing, don't count on it. Currently they are struggling with putting wires up so anything not announced is unlikely to happen big scale.

 

[Clip]

TfL haven't got the money to do same level of change as they did with the original Overground routes (plus there was a world of difference between them and SE lines). Other than painting stations and agreeing to a overhaul of units (something SE hasn't been allowed to do yet bar the 375 fleet) there's little money to do anything else.

This is my thinking on it too especially given the fares freeze announced then where would they get the extra money from? Will still be the same trains doing the same thing so im not sure what they would be able to achieve - apart from blaming Southern and NR when things go wrong lol

 

[ScotGG]

There's a lot of scope for redeveloping land around stations which could help fund either directly or through developer contributions. TfL could utilise that to a greater degree than the DfT system of franchises and NR.

 

[swt_passenger]

There's a lot of scope for redeveloping land around stations which could help fund either directly or through developer contributions. TfL could utilise that to a greater degree than the DfT system of franchises and NR.

TfL aren't the landlord, they are just the station operator - except on their own section of the ELL. Every other section of LO routes remains under Network Rail ownership, who definitely retain the operational land around the stations.

 

[ScotGG]

Not always though in SE Metro areas. At Kidbrooke for example, plans are underway to merge the NR land by the station with TfL's bus station to build many homes. TfL takeovers can speed up these processes.

And even where NR hold all the land, TfL are looking to forge close relationships to build on beside LO stations. The DfT show far less interest in this working, as do short term franchise operators.

 

[Clip]

Not always though in SE Metro areas. At Kidbrooke for example, plans are underway to merge the NR land by the station with TfL's bus station to build many homes. TfL takeovers can speed up these processes.

And even where NR hold all the land, TfL are looking to forge close relationships to build on beside LO stations. The DfT show far less interest in this working, as do short term franchise operators.

There would be blue bloody murder if NR just gave away or went halfs with the land surrounding their stations to TfL. Teh amount of money they would lose would be astronomical.

I mean look at the previous idea here for a station on the SE lines at Brockley - there isnt any room there anymore and with the new flats there the opposition for a new station would be too great for one to get built imo no matter if the railway was there first or there was a station there before hand. Increased footfall and noise that comes with it will just be too much for the residents there.

 

[HH]

The DfT show far less interest in this working, as do short term franchise operators.

Why would franchise operators have any interest? The land belongs to NR; the TOCs have nothing to do with it. DfT could possibly take an interest, but clearly don't see it as part of their brief. They're focusing on other things at the moment...

 

[SF-02]

Well exactly franchises don't care, so the current system doesn't work well as the DfT also are disinterested. TfL are more interested in that aspect.

Clip - who said NR give land away? They would retain their share of income from sales, but as they have been poor at capturing value from their land TfLs approach is likely to improve this potential source of revenue.